[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: add a user configurable Kconfig option for the VGA


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Derek Straka <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:26:01 -0400
  • Cc: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 14:26:32 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=asterius.io; s=mailo; q=dns; h=Sender: MIME-Version: In-Reply-To: References: From: Date: Message-ID: Subject: To: Cc: Content-Type; b=QEoGNvFvXGqVOrjmOEj7kJN4N3fTFA4hQAxCeAtwBo8z8LzfW90qe4icNypXOwq0dHmUxb 6ozooq/FoUhiuB9pvouyQ2PhC9qZcam6CWGHYmph13YEDq6asIzDEdy40nvYRVv+HNOqisYV Ltj9V/9C4y7xK5cG9fI5peqiJODfU=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>



On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 20.09.16 at 14:35, <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:47 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >>> On 13.09.16 at 21:40, <derek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Allows for the conditional inclusion of VGA driver on the x86 platform
>> > rather than having it always enabled.
>>
>> So I guess with all three of these patches an overview mail is missing.
>> What are you trying to accomplish? Solely reducing the binary size of
>> Xen doesn't seem like a very important goal to me, and eliminating
>> these drivers from the build doesn't appear to help make Xen more
>> stable of secure.
>>
> I agree with your assessment on the stability and security standpoint.  Our
> customer has asked us to remove
> unused drivers based on functionality of a set of boards.  Each of the
> boards has a subset of the available hardware functionality
> brought out to accessible headers.

Well, does that mean that's just to reduce the size of the hypervisor?
If so, I'm honestly not sure we want to set a precedent here, since
if we do, people could come and suggest to make all sorts of code
build conditionally, and I don't think our plans with Kconfig so far were
going in that direction (but others may disagree with me here).

For the most part: yes.  At the end of the day, my customer wants to reduce the size of hypervisor.  I disagree a bit that these specific changes 
would set a poor precedent of for configuration.  The reason I proposed it in the first place was the mechanisms for conditional compilation 
were already implicitly available via HAS_*.  I thought adding the ability for the user to explicitly define the configuration option
would be a permissible extension of the capability already present.  That said, I do see your point about limiting the scope of conditional 
code to avoid an eventual mess.  Thanks.

-Derek 
Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.